Letter before claim recieved

BRS7

Wow, thanks for saving me even further headache by the looks of things!

Okay, will take this on myself with the help of the forum.

My first question...the claim made against me is in relation to several parking charges, scs providided pictures of all of them, only two of them was it evident that the car I am the registered keeper of was parked breaching contract (they were the only two with pictures taken in daylight where you could see the sign above the car, I’m not sure if the sign met the requirements of the legislation) to save myself some headache I offered to pay for these two charges. However only a percentage of what they were offering due to the below paragraph in schedule 4 of pofa 2012. Scs (or their client) declined and have obviously taken things further. So my question is in relation to the court claim form, am I okay to select the option “if you admit only part of the claim” or should I be completely disagreeing with the claim? It also seems that if I admit part of the claim I only get 14 days to submit my defence however if I disagree I get 14 days to acknowledge and then a further 28 days to submit my defence.

5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

Thanks in advance

Quentin

Read up #2 in the newbies faq thread.


You will find a walkthrough on how to submit the AOS


Follow it to the letter!

nosferatu1001

Personally, disagree with all. Admitting something puts you in a weaker position.
They rejected your offer, they want all, so why reoffer a little now?

BRS7

I didn't know if it would weaken the case having offered a little and then trying to defend all?

However, I will take your advise and disagree with all. I will acknowledge service online this evening and then start to draft a defence over the weekend.

May I ask, is the total on the claim form the maximum that will be payable? It includes legal rep and court fees but i wasn't sure if the court fees could increase if it actually goes to court?

Coupon-mad

So my question is in relation to the court claim form, am I okay to select the option !!!8220;if you admit only part of the claim!!!8221; or should I be completely disagreeing with the claim?

It's a scumbag parking firm and the only reason you made an offer earlier was their pure intimidation.

You are not liable, the charges are an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18) and you won't be admitting ANY part of the baseless claim.

is the total on the claim form the maximum that will be payable? It includes legal rep and court fees but i wasn't sure if the court fees could increase if it actually goes to court?

The fees are already exaggerated. I expect they've pretended the outstanding charges are £160 each instead of £100, under a jumped up excuse of debt collector or 'indemnity' fees (that DO NOT EXIST, were never incurred).

If you lose, you would likely pay less than the exaggerated claim. They cannot add more costs, and what is written on the form is all in dispute.

But 99% of people here win, when they stick around, follow advice and come back at every stage, not ignoring any later court directions or deadlines in the build up to the hearing. Start a list of your costs in defending this because when you win you can claim them back as long as you have (close to the hearing) filed a costs schedule.

BRS7

I expect they've pretended the outstanding charges are £160 each instead of £100

Exactly that!

Thanks for your help, I'll be back in a few days to share my draft.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

BRS7

Hi All,

Currently working on my defence...

Other than Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 can anyone suggest any other legislation that i can read through to find errors in SCS & UKPC's actions so far?

BRS7

Wow, i am finding this so difficult. I am struggling to find failings, they seem to have done everything they should. I received NTK's within the time frame, i received a LBC, the particulars of claim include why it was a breach of terms, they have sent me photographic evidence, copies of signage, the contract between them and the land owner, the signage warns of additional debt collection charges....

All i am clutching onto is that 9/11 charges were during the early hours of the morning and the photographs were taken in darkness so the photographic evidence is, well, not evidence at all. I know very little on criminal law, but nothing on civil...is the fact the photos can't prove it going to be enough?

So this is what i have, taking pieces from two other posted drafts, the bit in yellow possible needs to come out? and the bit in red was where i changed from origianl paragraph.

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXXXX

Between:

Uk Parking Control Ltd v XXXXXX


Preliminary

1) The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2) The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background

3) It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the owner of the vehicle in question.

4) It is denied that any "parking charges or loss/damages" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

5) The claimant has not provided enough details to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charges were incurred for not parking correctly within a marked bay; which is wholly denied by the Defendant.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

6) It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking 'parking management'. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
I have been provided with a redacted version of the contract between the landowner and UKPC





6. Accordingly it is denied that:
6.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
6.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

7. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
7.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
7.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
7.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

8) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

9) The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free resident parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

10) The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

11) If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed

Coupon-mad

9 of the 11 charges are from residential parking (not my residence) on occasions where either THE DRIVER had parked a little wonky or there were no spaces available

What were the other 2 PCNs for and are all eleven in this claim?